>> i'm not wedded to every detail of my plan. i'm open to compromise. i'm open to new ideas. i'm committed to solving our fiscal challenges. i refuse to accept any approach that is not balanced. neil: all right, parse the words, and here's what we got, a president who sensibly says i'm open to a lot of things. thaws -- does that mean he's open to, well, a little bit more on revenues than we assumed? not that just they go up and taxes go up because i think they are, but what he left open today in the east room is how far they go up and when they go up. it could be a return of the

olive branch first offered by spaker boehner. who am i to say? this much i will say kicking things off tonight. there is the makings of a deal here, an agreement in the political posturing and theater that is famous in washington. each side trying to very carefully dance off the cliff without looking like it produced the disaster. there is, in the president' remarks today and boehner's yesterday, the inkling of an overture on each side, now, how much of one? with 52 days left to go, how real? rich edson in washington reading between the lines. what do you think, rich? >> well, neil, there's plenty of space. there's not that many details discussed. neither side says they want to box the other in the corner beginning negotiations. president obama, though, made it fairly clear he wants taxes to go up on wealthier taxpayers saying after the election, he

was re-elected, democrats back in the senate, and the message in the campaign is wealthier people need to pay more. therefore, that's the approach he's taken. as for what happens in the3 negotiations and next year, we're still very, very early in this, and so we continue to move forward. what we heard from house speaker boehner, he'll talk revenue. unprompted the other say said we'll discuss revenue from an overall of the tax system. that's something he wants to accomplish next year with entitlement reforms. mitch mcconnell was stronger saying he was not sent to washington to raise taxes to pay for more wasteful spending. this election has not changed anything. neil, the discussions, at least face-to-face begin next week. the president invited congressional leaders to the white house for a meeting, and congressional leaders are working out a date and time. back to you. neil: rich, do you get a sense there's a difference between the house and senate approach to this? i agree with you in hearing

mitch, sounding like no compromise, but boehner left a potential compromise on things like tax credits, allowances, various writeoffs they shut down which would be a tax increase, but in the sweeping sense of raising tax rates would not, and that's where he finds the wiggle room with acceptance on the part of the white house that for now being acceptable. what do you think? >> absolutely. the difference being that house speaker john bane has to be the one who signs off on this deal and brings this deal up. senate majority leader, the minority leader now, will be, likely in january, and so he can run opposition on this, a part of any deal likely cut or in on the discussions on that, but as far as the different roles are concerned, this is house speaker john boehner's thing. he runs the house. he's the top republican negotiator in this so he's the one who goes to the white house, and he's the one who has to tell them what passes the senate or

house. neil: very true. you don't think about that, but it's who controls the boyds, republicans control the house. boehner is the powerful player here. as always, thank you. rich edson at the white house, and craig smith in arizona. now, craig, i could be overanalyzing, but i'm beginning to see the inkling of and structuring of is the deal that would potentially save face on republicans on revenues saying it might not be a raise, but closing loopholes and that thing. the president might buy that, might not, but because they left out specifics and boehner left out specifics yesterday, me thinks there is wiggle rooms on revenues. on spending, then, up to the republicans to see the democrats open to reigning in the growth of the entitlements so you don't throw granny off the cliff. how do you score the likelihood of progress next week. >> i wish i could be as

optimistic as you, neilment i listenedded to the president's speech, and i was infear rated. he did not offer an olive pit let alone an olive branch. they say in life you can tell where the truth is after the but. that neil cavuto, he's a great guy, but -- and then you go on and say what you feel. okay? he wants compromise, wants the leaders in, the same thing he said when elected in 2008, but we can't do it by cutting spending. we have to raise taxes on wealthy people like me. he says, well, blah blah blah blah blah, i want to work with everybody, but we can't balance the budget on the argument of seniors and students' backs. neil, it's the same -- neil: you think the bottom line is he's going to go back to the old talking points, republicans, then, are going to retreat back into their position because they feel they would have overred a branch, and he broke it, and we could be going down at the end of the year? >> absolutely. neil, i have a copy of each of

the cbo reports, one down in may of this past year and one recently released two days ago. i went through them line by line before we came into the studio. if we're to take mr. obama at his word at the beginning of the speech today this is all about jobs and growth, the cbo outlines a path to create that, to create 1.8 million jobs, a 3% growth rate, if we extend, and other premises were extending two years on fiscal restraints and the tax increases even on the upper end. if we increase the upper end, it goes to 1.6 million jobs. if we go to reducing the payroll tax, it goes to $800,000. kneel, if he truly wants growth in jobs, the cbo gave him a game plan. what you saw today was a well-crafted speech that his writers wrote, ran by the legal

guys to ensure he could parse his words, and you're going to see a battle royal, guaranteed, neil, six weeks from now, we'll be talking about a battle in congress playing chicken. neil: all right. it's how you define how that battle is drawn and what the battle lines are. as the president said, as he did today, that if a plan is presented to me without tax hikes on the rich, i'm going to veto it, not going to accept it, then the devil is in the detail of what the tax hikes are, and why i get caught up in the semantics is that it depends on what is a tax hike? i think, i think from republicans with whom i chatted, that they want to expand that to include, realm, you know, if we close loopholes, credits, special breaks, and the $4 billion for the oil industry, what have you, that that might go away to show we're serious about eventually looking at the tax code itself, and its

preponderance and that results in tax hikes. the president might require more than that, but maybe there is this room that the president then has to say, all right, as long as that means that a good many in that group of americans, the 250,000, and over crowd is paying more, i'll be okay with that. am i just be naive? >> you may be right, neil, but, again, if consistency holds true, the republicans were clear. whatever tax reductions and deductions and getting rid of deductions was there, it had to be, quote, "revenue neutral," and i don't think president obama's thinking on revenue neutral terms. he wants taxes. neil, more importantly, this is so anti-business. my ceo has to turn in his budget to me by december 1st, at the latest, december 15th, to get authorized for 2013. traditional corporations submit their budgets by november 15th. neil, that's a few days from now.

how does a ceo plan against this administration who clearly plays politics on every single issue, whether it's benghazi or taxes? neil. the cbo gives him a way home. what he did today was just like he blamed george bush for the last four years, he set it up if this does not happen, it's boehner's fault, it's mccon nell's fault, cantor's fault, and he was the good guy doing everything, but had a bad set of cards from the congress. he is not telling the truth in my opinion, neil, nor is he taking us back to jobs and growth, and he should be held accountable for that. i want him in a room, instead of the supporters, put him in a room of reporters asking questions he has to answer and -- neil: you won't see that. good points as always when you visit us. craig smith, he raised a point that bears watching here, how much the president is

compromising and how much each side is getting. you know, every since speaker boehner offered a plan to have revenues orbit table, speaking generally, didn't specify what revenues, didn't specify what hikes, but it's caused a revolt with some of the troops that he runs, the republicans who he oversees in the house. one of them is going to be joining me next, and let's just say not happy. not happy at all. ♪

what makes the sleep number store different? you walk into a conventional mattress store, it's really not about you. we have so much technology in our store to rely show the customers what's going on with their bodies. you can see a little more pressure in the shoulders and in the hips. ... now you can feel what happens as we raise your sleep number setting and allow the bed to contour to your individual shape. oh, wow. that feels really good. at sleep number we've created a collection of innovationdedicated to individualizing your comfort. the sleep number collection, designed around the innovative sleep number bed - a bed with dualair technology that allows you to adjust to the exact comfort your body needs.

each of your bodies. so whatever you feel like, sleep number's going to provide it for you. during our semi-annual sleep sale, save $500 on our classic series special edition bed set and for 5 days only enjoy 36 month financing on selected beds but only through monday. you'll only find the innovative sleep number bed at one of our 400 stores, where queen mattresses start at just $699. neil: i'm not saying we have a revolt on our hands, but we have, at least from the eyes of critic z, john boehner a revolting thought, the idea that the leader of the republicans of the house of representatives is open to raising taxes. the louisiana republican says

not only on issues like taxes, but on immigration, host of other issues. explain, congressman. you're not happy now op any revenue issues that boehner might want to concede? >> well, neil, that's quite right. of course, spaker boehner's comment were a bit contra kick digit -- contradictoryy but suggested he's willing to increase taxes on certain groups, particularly higher income levels, not by raising rates, but by reducing the deductions which really has the same effect, and as we all know, most small businesses are organized as llc, and higher income taxes on higher income earners, small business owners, will just reduce economic activity and reduce job. neil: it's a notary

public-starter -- non-starter to you? >> well, absolutely. neil: if all he talked about was closing loopholes for those who pay little taxes to pay more in taxes, you'd be against that? >> well, yes, of course. i don't see any reason to have a net increase tax burden on any income level, especially those that are creating jobs. i'm for reducing tax rates and deductions, keeping that neutral. neil: how many feel like you do, congressman? do you suspect? >> i think the majority do, the more conservative members, but, on the other hand, there's more moderate republicans who are tired of the issuing 4 to throw in the towel. i worry about that. we have to stay firm, not because we're protecting anybody, but simply to protect jobs. neil: would it compromise the

speaker's support among republicans? in other words, would you think twice about re-electing him? your speaker? >> no, i think a lot of john boehner, ad goo man, a good leader, but he does have a lot of people to answer to, a lot of pressure on him, recriminations, and autopsy's being done on why we lost the white house. i think he's a little bit flexing to that, but at the end of the day, before he makes statements, i think most members would appreciate he consult with us first. neil: you're angry that he didn't? >> well, i don't want to characterize it as anger, but i just simply feel like we would have been better served and the american people would be better served to consult with other republicans before going out on a limb on some of the statements that arguably vague. neil: okay. congressman. we'll watch closely, bears watching here, a possible revet

without signing on to revenue of any sort. this is a mute point in california right now. they had two different propositions, two, to raise taxes, not just on the upper income, but everybody. californians agreed to it, both measures, overwhelmingly. that state's former governor davis on the meaning of that for the nation after this. you see us, at the start of the day. on the company phone list that's a few names longer. you see us bank on busier highways. on once empty fields. everydyday you see all the ways all of us at us bank are helping grow our economy. lending more so companies and communities can expand, grow stronger and get back to work. everyday you see all of us serving you, around the country, around the corner.

us bank. to start her own interior design business. she's got a growing list of clients she keeps in touch with using e-mail marketing from constantcontact.com. constantcontact is easy and affordable. it lets her send out updates and photos that showcase her expertise and inspire her customers for only $15 a month. [ dog barking ] her dream -- to be the area's hottest interior design office. [ children laughing ] right now, she just dreams of an office. get a free trial at constantcontact.com.

neil: i was thinking if only former colorado governor had this wind at his back, californiaians voting to approve hiking taxes on themselveses, one on the wealthy, and another on all of us, what they approved there. governor, had you had this, you would have finished your term.

>> i probably would have, neil, but, you know, i don't think we should spend too much time with the should have, would have, could have. neil: that's right. i said that, had i had salad and broccoli, but, governor, let me ask about what this means now and how much wiggle room it gives legislators and governor brown today. if they are open to tax hikes, opponents of the hikes say, well, be careful what you wish for because cutting spending is not nearly as profound as the zeal to raise taxes. you left a whacky geneny -- genie out of the bottle. >> the governor made it clear where he was coming from not supporting any tax increase unless there's a vote of the people approving it so whatever the legislature decides to do with the two-thirds majority, the governor insists it's on the ballot. it's rare for a tax increase of

this magnitude to pass, all credit to the governor, but i think people were tired of the cutting. we rank 47th, 47th in per capita spending on education. tuition going up 7%-10% a year at university level, and california understands the link between education and good jobs and education and being the innovation leader in the united statts. i think in this one case, the governor was able to convince them that we had to tax ourselves to be able to maintain the apples, twitters, facebooks, ciscos, all the companies staying here in california. neil: some are substantial taxes like the 12.3% sur challenge for the half million and over crowd. that would not exactly be a reason for me to stay in california. i might pop over to nevada or move; right? is there a threat? >> well, i think that's a good point. i believe some people will move.

others come back, and i think what jerry brown was able to community kate, and, again, deserves all credit for this because they said the initiative was dead and buried a month ago, but convinced people that the path to a better life and path to better jobs was to invest in education, and we just cut, cut, and cut for decades. that does not open the door to wholesale tax increases. neil: i think they hope you are right, on the right and the left. the tax hike propositions is they are submitted before serious cuts were done, things had been cut, but not to the degree they should, and that bothered them, that this now gives those who want to cut spending again halts that with a license again. >> i think there's some truth to that, but keep in mind, when the governor took office, he had a

$26 billion deficit, cut that down to $16 billion, a couple more cuts, and $6 billion worth of revenue, not back where we were four or five years ago, but 95% or 97%, but california can start investing again and not cutting away down to the bone, which, trust me, we had done. neil: lessons for washington. the president made clear today, governor, he's not compromising on this revenue issue, the tax hike issues, the $250,000 and over crowd pay more in taxes. in an east room statement today, he said essentially that's not negotiateble. he didn't quantify exactly how much the rate should be, the old talk was get it back up to 39.6%. some, maybe over animal -- analyzing thought it was up for negotiation. how much do you raise the rich folks' taxes when you implement it, but what do you read into that and how much flexibility is

he offering into that? there was a guest who said there's no flex the in this position, but just wants to whrak the rich just like he always did. >> first of all, delighted that president obama won re-election, and we know how difficult it was given the fragile economy that we have here in america, but i believe he wants to accomplish two things. one, he wants to generate revenue, ad goo portion of which goes to pay down the debt, and he wants to grow the economy putting america back to work. you know, in california, the governor had 12.5% unemployment. taking office, down to 10.2%, a few more stop looking, so it's 11%, one out of eight california nans not works. you don't have people believing in the american dream if they don't have something to do. i think what the president wants to do is create growth, generate revenues for the people -- neil: i know what he wants to do. sorry, i was not clear.

i know what he wants to do, but wondering whether what he proposed today was something that could be flexible? in other words, yes, he wants to raises taxes on the rich. that's going to happen, but maybe the olive branch he's offering back to the branch that boehner offered him is that it needn't be an immediate return to the top rate, but a combination of closing credits, allowances, breaks, that sort of thing. i could be wrong, but that he is maybe leaving that vague, the goals should be the rich pay more, but what he's working on are the details, how much more, and where they get the more from. what do you think? >> and when. neil: and when. >> i can't speak for the president, but what i know having been a chief executive of california, which, by the way, the fifth largest economy in the world, if you need the republicans as he does in the

house of representatives, they have to get something out of the deal. i mean, how you treat dividends, capital games, timing of the increase, how long you could -- if you had to extend the increase for the wealthy for six months, everyone else for three years, maybe that expires for everybody at that point as a deficit reduction program, as i say, how you treat capital gapes, how that happens. there's a thousand things that could be done. neil: all of the above? >> i don't know. i'm saying that if i were dealing with a body whose vote i 4 to have, and they were of another party, i realize i have to give them a reason to help me accomplish what i want to accomplish or i'm not going to accomplish it. the president fully understands that. neil: i think you make too much sense, governor. we'll see what happens. it's a pleasure having you sir. >> thank you, neil, good to be with you. neil: former governor of the great state of california. we want to focus on what's going on in the east coast with the sandy storm. a million folks still without power, and one community is so

angry at its power company, they just said to hell with them, time for the government to take over. get rid of utility, have the government take over. wow. ♪

neil: all right. well, if you're in the northeast and you don't have power, you're angry. if you got the power back dealing with hundreds, if not thousands dollars of spoiled foods and goods and that stuff, saying nothing to destruction of the home as a result of the power going out, you're not in love with your power company. in nassau county, new york, they are so angry, they are saying to hell with them. the government should take over. bring the military in, anyone but these bozos. with us, a fellow proposing just that, the nassau county

executive of long island. sir, very good to have you. explain what you want to see happen. >> look, the power company here failed the people of nassau county with over 80,000 people without power, it's day 11 here. it's app utter failure. we need support to support the managing structure of the facility. we have linesmen working 16-hour shifts, not getting anywhere without the logistical support from the top. neil: now, long island power authority services you; right? lipa ?rks >> that's right. neil: i enjoy your comments, you're direct. i admire that. what do they say? we're overwhelmed, can't do it, what, what? >> here's the problem. the communication has been poor. it's promise after promise, failed deadline, missed deadline after deadline. we're at a loss at the ability to provide our indicateses with

accurate information when will they get the power? how do they get the power? need inspections? every day it changes. it needs a complete structure from the top so we can have a military-like system to deliver the information accurately and concisely to the res dependents. neil: do you think it's different though, right now, that if we had competition? in other words, if lipa had a lot of other businesses that could compete? in other words, may the best survive and offer the alternative if one doesn't. right now, in new jersey, one on two players, on one or two players, that we should broaden the field a little bit? >> well, i'm sure that's going to be explored as governor quo moe promised an investigation in what's going op with the power company. right now, neil, we need boots on the ground to advise residents how to get power op,

and if they're not, they need the information to make life safety choices. these people are sheltering in places, living in 44 degree temperatures in their homes, the dispair is -- my heart's broken. i'm sick to my stomach. when i visit the people and see how they suffer in place with the hope their electricity's going to go on, and each day it doesn't happen. neil: we'll watch that closely. thank you very much for taking the time. again, another public official trying to take it to the ewe till sigh saying, hey, what gives? all right. we have all of these post-election layoffs going on, and whole industries saying they would be impacted if barack obama were re-elected, and a lot it sounded hyperbole; right? saying that to scare you. murray energy ceo, today, he's acting on it. this family used capital one venture miles

to come home for the holidays. that's double miles you can tually use... sadly, tir brother's white christmas just got "blacked out." [ brother ] but it's the family party! really jingles your bells, doesn'it? my gift to you! the capital one venture card! for any flight, any time! that's double miles you can actually use! how illunang. what's in your wallet? let me guess, am i on the naughty list again? ho ho ho!

neil: all right, well, they threatenedded, and they said if barack obama was reelected, not just bad for business, but for jobs and they would lay off people. murray energy, ceo, robert murray, laying offer 156 people after the president won re-election, and he sent out a prayer to the staff. i'll quote here. "lord, forgive me and anyone with me in the corporation for the decision that we are now forced to make to preserve the very existence of any of the enterprises that you have helped us build." mr. murray is on the phone now. how many people did you have to layoff? >> caller: so far, neil, and good afternoon, it's been about 300, and that's about 8% of the organization so far, but it's just the beginning. neil: now, you warned this might come to pass that the president and his energy policy being

anti-coal, anti-fossil fuel, you'd have a very tough time continuing operations as they are in light of that kind of a policy, but very few thought youth act on it. why did you? >> caller: well, they left me no choice. we'll see reduced economic activity in america. we're going to see reduced electric power consumption, and see drastically reduced coal markets. there's 12 regulations now that the obama administration has in the u.s. epa, ready to enact it. he was holding in until after the election. three of those, senatorring to the senator jim inhofe cost the american taxpayers, $600 million, three of the 12, and there's those that are waiting prom mull gages. there's nothing that i can do, but try to preserve what

business enterprise we have left and what i see is going to need to be as an enterprise to exist in the coal market place that is upon us both short term and long term. neil: report, is there anything in the president's tone, like the comments in the east room looking for bipartisan compromise, fiscal cliff, that makes you think that he could change his energy stance that when he says he's open to all forms of energy, he's not just sort of giving you lip service that he's serious? it might be a new tone? he might be a bigger president in this record than in the first four years? >> caller: neil, i have watched the president carefully, and monitored his statements very carefully for the last year, and he's an absolute liar when it comes to the coal

industry, a subject i know. he is a man that is not fit to guide this country, and he is a man that will continue the policies that he has. neil: don't you find it remarkable, report, in those states, where this is a big issue in ohio, pennsylvania, he won. in pennsylvania, he won comfortably. >> caller: of course, to answer the question, neil, i have no hope whatsoever from seeing his statements in the last year and of the democrats that support him, regarding coal, a subject that i do know, they were false statements, and i have no hope whatsoever that this man will do anything but continue the course of action that he embarkedded on four years ago. any rational person has to believe that; therefore, sir, i had to do what i had to do to save as many jobs and murray

energy and save this corporation if i can for as many of the employees that i can, and that is what they have forced upon me. i have no hope whatsoever in that individual doing the right thing for america. neil: so this could be just the start? in other words, these folks who you, the few hundred you announced you were going to layoff, more could follow? >> caller: i think it will follow. that's, in my statement to the staff here, and in my prayer, i touched on that, that this is just the beginning of a decline of economic activity which will affect our industry very early op, neil, because we supply the fuel that fuels america, and it's very susceptible to being influenced in terms of the markets with increases or decreases in america. we're a bell weather. we're the canary in the mine. neil: quite literally. all right.

we'll watch closely. always good talking to you regardless. thank you very much. >> caller: thank you, neil. neil: you seen one industry act on its warnings and dire promise that if this came to pass, the president re-elected, layoffs would begin. it started today, and if he's right, there's more to follow, and not just at his company. meanwhile, the fiscal cliff, closer to avoiding it or did the words the president use today, prove so vague that they just left people more confused than they were in the beginning? i heard something constructive in that, apparently, i'm the only one who did. next, one of the panelists coming up, they will say i was hearing the wrong thing after this.

neil: all right. this fiscal cliff, what, 52 days away until we become istanbul? i have nod request, but it's getting bad. what happens, and did anything anyone was saying today make any sense or give you any sign that progress is being made? now, i naively read between the lines of what the president said today and what john boehner said this week, and i did read the inklings of progress, but my cynical cohorts who never see anything good on anything that goes on disagree including charlie who doesn't trust anybody, melissa francis, with a great book out now that clearly tells me she doesn't like anybody, and lloyd weber, in the country, but clearly hates everybody here. [laughter] that's not true on any of the above, but beginning with you, signs of progress, do you see it? , i do. >> i do, i completely agree with you, neil. neil: i got to go the other way. >> he knows he has a great

crisis which brings great opportunity. that has not -- neil: to negotiate? >> there's not been a reform of the tax code since 1986. loopholes cost a trillion dollars a year. he knows this is the big moment. neil: meaning negotiating on fine points. >> yeah, i don't know. did you hear the speech given a few hours ago? to me, he said, i won, deal with it. i have a mandate -- neil: i didn't interpret it that way. >> did you watch it? neil: he kept it vague. taxes go up on the rich, that's a point, but didn't say how much or when. >> you expected him to lay out all of that? neil: i say that you said i'm sticking to that as gel, and that's not a shock, and the fact that you had boehner open to revenues leads me to believe i'll meet you halfway on this revenue increase. >> what's halfway? taxes are going up. that's what i heard. neil: right.

all right. charlie, what if it's not going there? >> devil's in the details, can close the loopholes, whatever. what we reported today on the fox business network is that he's telling banking executive, and i know this because these are the banking sectors that i cover, doing this broadly. neil: no one better connected. >> thank you. that says something about me; right? neil: yes, it does. >> what white house aids tell the folks is that we're ready to compromise. neil: but where it's >> let me finish. that president obama believes debt is a legacy issue, that this is a big legacy issue for him. now, he's where the devil of the details, he has not said, and the white house doesn't say. here's the other devil in the detail, who is he appointing as treasury secretary? if it's jack lou, the current chief of staff, that does not sort of show a lot of compromise. he's a partisan liberal.

they think jack is the leading choice. what about bowles, he's gone out there, former north carolina senator, said he doesn't want it, but suppose he goes there saying i want you, you can get the compromise. them you know there's going to be a compromise. bowles, from what i understand, as banking sources tell me, still is in the running. if you pick him, you got to think you pick him for the plan. neil: they had bill b -- bill daly briefly. >> you can't just blow out the secretary, chief of staff is one thing. neil: blow him out because he sucks. >> can we say that on cable? neil: just did. >> based on most people's assessments, tim geithner is not a good treasury secretary, but bowles is a serious guy. >> i would not compromise that question because both sides saying they love bowles, why didn't we do it? we would have done it. it's like a game of chicken. now if that's the player that

you put into to be the treasury secretary, you are signaling you want a compromise. i believe it when i see it. neil: first of all, get past the end of the year deadline to get both sides to agree on starting points. republicans have to swallow raising taxes. again, that proverbial devil is what taxes where. >> they adopt have a problem with it. neil: i know they don't. i agree. >> that's the compromise there. neil: that's where i see progress. now, they compel the democrats on reigning on the growth of entitlements, akin to throwing granny off the cliff. can they? >> i believe in america. i believe you can do it and get it right. we have the parliamentary system where you force through legislation. >> that's what they did here. >> there's too much austerity. neil: they are falling apart. >> double dip recession now because too much too soon, checks and balances, there's a chance for compromise and getting it right. i believe in america.

neil: hiking taxes, accident happen -- sapp up the high right. >> 4-to-1. all too much too soon. neil: now what? >> people know with 2% growth, and if you take out military spending out of the 2% growth, it's 1.3%. we're on the edge, a weak economy, and if you raise taxes, and you do stay tuned things, we're going back into a double dip. the question is how do you get the revenues? i mean, listen, i think it has to be done through tax reform. i think -- i don't know -- neil: can't do tax reform now, though. i feel you got to get past -- >> that's boehner's plan. house -- the speaker, believes that you do a stopgap measure. this is what i was told by people in washington, do the big grand deal, and that depends on ho who is the trash ri secretary. any executive meeting with barack obama over the past four years says the guy, when it comes to economics, he doesn't

care. you talked to people -- neil: it bores him. >> talk to people on that jobs committee, and they tell you that these meetings were profunk ri at best reading off the tell prompter. neil: i can't stand people who read -- okay, melissa, another crack pot that advances you. democrats might want to let the thing explode. >> yeah. neil: so early in the administration, they can pick and choose carcasses in the new year. >> i guess. i mean you'd think you're the furthest away from the next election you'll ever be. it's the perfect time. neil: stood on principle for the people. >> that's right. this is the time to do something super crazy. neil: who does it advantage more? democrats. >> nobody. you can't raise taxes on 90% of the americans. >> i can make a case for both.

both sides weigh this mily. republicans think, all right, you bought it, want it, president obama doesn't want to compromise. let's go through a recession. 2% growth, stuff like that, it could be really bad, last more than two years. neil: take that out on the republican house? >> who knows. they convey -- a lot of times that's down to the president, but the president, with, you know, all the media cheerleading him, has a very good track record on flipping the tables on the republicans. who knows. i can see -- neil: can you prove it? >> i see both sides seeing that as the advantage, letting it blow up. neil: how do you think it works out in the end? >> i think president obama's got the eye on legacy. america will be just fine. i agree with financial times that america is the brightest spot in the world economy. >> i think they are going to cobble --

neil: so where are we going to be at midnight op new year? do you think we'll have cobbled together something? >> something cheap and band-aid style, needle nose pliers and duct tape. >> that would be good. >> well, depending on the committee to clean it up to make it beautiful who never does. >> neil, you can't tell right now. i'm a reporter. >> you have to pick a side and say something spp -- >> no, you don't. >> what show is he on? >> this is the one sign -- neil: wouldn't it be great? charlie has it on the highest note that the world's going to end. >> look at what the markets look at, the viewers, who is treasury secretary. that tells what type of deal. you might get a stopgap deal with a grand bargain later, but the treasury secretary tells you. neil: we'll be all over it, but you have a flight back to britain just in case.

just in case. we'll have more, next. follow the wings. you see us, at the start of the day. on the company phone list that's a few names longer. you see us bank on busier highways. on once pty fields. everyday you see all the ways all of us at us bank are helping grow our economy. lending more scompanies and communities can expand, grow stronger and get back to work. everyday you see all of us serving you, around the country, around the corner.

us bank. you walk into a conventional mattress store, it's really not about you. we have so much technology in our store to really show the custors what's going on with their bodies. you can see a little more pressure in the shoulders and in the hips. ... now you can feel what happens as we raise your sleep number setting and allow the bed to contour to your individual shape. oh, wow. that feels really good. at sleep number we've created a collection of innovations dedicated to individualizing your comfort. the sleep number collection, designed around the innovative sleep number bed - a bed with dualair technology that allows you to adjust to the exact comfort your body needs. each of your bodies. so whatever you feel like, sleep number's going to provide it for you. during our semi-annual sleep sale, save $500 on our classic series special edition bed set and for 5 days only enjoy 36 month financing on selected beds but only through monday. you'll only find the innovative sleep number bed at one of our 400 stores, where queen mattresses start at just $699.

♪♪ you can help othersnk along the way. ♪ ♪ a portion of every bottle that they sell goes to fight ♪ ♪ breast cancer and i think that's swell. ♪ ♪ the more you take, e more they'll pay, ♪ ♪ so make them write a big check day. ♪ ♪ and if you're feeling a little slow, ♪ ♪ then 5-hour energy will help you go. ♪ ♪ so buy a bottle of pink lemonade and ♪ ♪ you can help fight breast cancer today. ♪

so, which supeast 4g lte service would yochoose, based on this chart ? don't rush into it, i'm not looking for the fastest answer. obviously verizon. okay, i have a different chart. going that way, does that make a difference ? look at verizon. it's so much more than the other ones. so what if we just changed the foat altogether ? isn't that the exact same thing ? it's pretty clear. still sticking with verizon. verizon. more 4g lte coverage than all other networks combined. neil: around the clock, and you tweet around the clock. consider this from fred, i'm >> we go round the clock. all of the republican party never should have lost. >> say hello to four more years of economic stagnation how much election coverage i finally, another writes, best flverage of the night, i was